Commandos
of
Israel’s
Shayetet
13
Navy
SEALS
unit
storm the Mavi Marmara, May 31.
They “were ordered to shoot to kill even as they were on their way onto
the deck.”(Photo: DHA)

Many
liberals in the West and in Israel talk of the Israeli massacre of
passengers
on the Gaza flotilla as a “bungled operation.” The costs to Israel in
“public
opinion” and with “decision-makers” in Europe and the United States
from
killing activists delivering humanitarian aid are so high, they argue,
that the
military planners of the raid, or Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and
“Defense” Minister Ehud Barak who ordered it. must have made a big
blunder.
Writer David Grossman (a Zionist “peacenik” who support Israel’s
disastrous
2006 war on Lebanon) called the government’s response “stupid,”
arguing: “Israel
did not send its soldiers to kill civilians in cold blood; indeed, this
is the
last thing it wanted” (Haaretz, 2
June). On the contrary, Israel’s rulers absolutely wanted their
soldiers to
“kill civilians in cold blood.” Foreign minister Liberman declared on
the eve
of the raid that Israel was prepared to stop the flotilla “at any
cost,” and
called on the international community to show understanding for
Israel’s action
(AP, 30 May).

This
was not a case of inexperienced, trigger-happy soldiers run amok. The
unit that
carried out the raid on the Mavi Marmara
was Shayetet (Flotilla) 13, Israel’s equivalent of U.S. Navy SEALS.
This killer
elite is
notorious for its assassinations of Palestinian militants on the West
Bank. The
commandos trained for a month for the grotesquely named “Operation Sea
Breeze,”
including practice takeovers of a ship at sea. According to the
military
correspondent of the liberal Zionist Haaretz
(4 June), the training “included opening fire at charging activists,”
and if
they thought the situation was life-threatening “the commandos were
ordered to shoot
to kill even as they were on their way onto the deck” – which is what
they did.
Moreover, the head of the Navy was on a boat next to the ship to
supervise the
operation; the chief of commandos unit, on another gunboat, “gave
orders by
radio to use live fire, two minutes after the incident had begun” and
climbed
on the ship during the raid. In short, killing civilians in cold blood
was exactly what the commanders ordered. The
only “mistake” was that they got more resistance than they expected.

A
commentary on the site of an Israeli leftist group, the Alternative
Information
Center (4 June), remarked: “In contrast to the opinions of the Israeli
newspapers that contend something went wrong in the military action, we
believe
that the natural conclusion from this criminal action of the occupation
army is
that it must necessarily have resulted in the slaughter of innocent
civilians....
[T]hese are commando soldiers trained to kill in face to face combat
who fell
on the activists like a pack of wolves.” Precisely. But if the killing
was
deliberate and the public outrage predictable and expected, the
question then
is: why did Israeli leaders order it?
In the first place, they wanted to deliver a bloody lesson to those who
dared
to break the Zionists’ deadly blockade of Gaza. But beyond that, the
Gaza
flotilla massacre was a message to the Obama White House. Already in
Operation
Cast Iron, the Israeli invasion of Gaza that murdered more than 1,400
Gazans
and destroyed 50,000 homes just as the U.S. president-elect was taking
office,
the Netanyahu government put Obama to the test – and he remained
silent.

Then
last September, when the U.S. called on Israel not to expand West Bank
settlements, Netanyahu’s refusal to stop new construction was a
deliberate
warning to Obama not to step on Israeli toes. Once again the Democratic
White
House backed down. No surprise there: several of Obama’s top aides are
committed Zionists, including his political adviser David Axelrod and
his chief
of staff Rahm Emanuel (who did volunteer work for the Israeli army
during the
1991 Gulf War), and pro-Israel hardliners like Hillary Clinton. So why
do it
again, especially as the raid had to screw up the U.S.’ diplomatic
maneuvering
over Iran and put the U.S. alliance with Turkey in jeopardy? Because
the attack on the Gaza aid flotilla was awar
provocation. Israel’s execution of
activists delivering humanitarian aid was so brazen that it was
designed to
provoke some kind of revenge attack, potentially setting off a chain
reaction.
The rightist Israeli government is gearing
up for a military attack on Iran, and is making sure Washington is
prepared
to withstand the worldwide opprobrium that will bring.

Zionist
spokesmen went out of their way to rub it in. The Israeli press office
sent out
a sneering video, “We Con the World,” financed by a “neo-conservative”
Zionist
think tank in Washington, that mocked the activists on the Gaza “love
boat.”
Israeli premier Netanyahu echoed the theme in defending the Israeli
assault on
the “terror boat” in a June 2 TV speech. He hammered on the theme that
the
blockade was necessary because Israel would not “permit Iran to
establish a
Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv.” The claim
that
letting in used clothing, toys, prefabricated housing and cement would
be
tantamount to establishing an Iranian port in Gaza is ludicrous. In
fact,
Israel won’t let the beleaguered Strip have any kind of port. Moreover,
as the
astute Near East commentator Juan Cole pointed out, if that were the
issue
there has for years been a nearby port in the hands of a pro-Iranian
Arab
movement: Tyre, in Hezbollah-dominated southern Lebanon (Informed
Comment, 3 June). But this was not about irrational
Israeli fears of an “Iranian port,” it’s pushing for war on Iran.

Various
liberal and even serious conservative media wring their hands about the
Israeli
government creating enemies. The London Guardian
(7 June) described Netanyahu’s response “almost as appalling as the
commando
raid itself.” The New York Times (6
June) published an article, “What to Do About Israel,” citing a piece
by
imperialist strategist Anthony Cordesman titled “Israel as a Strategic
Liability.” Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in
Washington, lectures sternly: “It is time Israel realized that it has
obligations to the United States ... and that it become far more
careful about
the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits
the
support of American Jews.” The Times article
reports on “deep soul-searching in parts of the American Jewish
community,” the
emergence of a liberal Zionist lobby, J Street (in contrast to all the
conservative and Zionist lobbies with offices on K Street in
Washington), and a
seder in suburban Washington where “a debate broke out ... over where
to draw
the line when considering American support for Israel’s government.”

Even
the conservative London Economist (5
June) headlined, “Israel’s Siege Mentality,” adding: “The government’s
macho
attitude is actually making Israel weaker.” It writes that “for Israel,
the
episode is accelerating a slide towards its own isolation,” that it is
“now
seen as the clumsy bully on the block.” Echoing the new Tory prime
minister
Cameron, it sums up: “The blockade of Gaza is cruel and has failed....
Just as
bad, from Israel’s point of view, it helps feed antipathy towards
Israel, not
just in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but in Europe too.” The
ultra-establishment New York Times (3 June) quotes
“senior American officials” saying, “There is no question that we need
a new
approach to Gaza,” one “allowing more supplies into the impoverished
Palestinian area.” Note that the Obama administration officials are not calling to end the boycott, only to
modify it. These top-level imperialist spokesmen presume that opinion
in Europe
and among Washington policy makers would dictate a shift in Israeli
policy.
Liberal Zionists in Israel assume the same thing, as do many leftists.
But any
change will be limited.

The real nuclear threat in the Middle East:
Israel has hundreds of nuclear warheads, developed at the Dimona
facility in the Negev (shown here).(Photo:
SpaceImaging)

The
head of the Mossad, Israel’s international espionage agency, testifyied
before
a Knesset committee the day after the Gaza flotilla raid that “Israel
is less
of an asset to the United States” these days (Jerusalem
Post, 2 June). He was not referring to blowback from the
massacre, however, but to the more fundamental fact that Washington
needs a
degree of Arab and Muslim support in order to get out of the morass it
has sunk
into in Iraq and Afghanistan and for its diplomatic maneuvers over
Iran, and
that Israeli intransigence on Palestine is an obstacle to this. That
will not
change tomorrow, no matter what happens to the Gaza bockade. But that
by no
means implies that the Israeli government will bow to Washington’s
needs. The
Zionists have always sought to sell their services to the dominant
imperialist
power, first Britain and then the United States, as a vital ally in
controlling
the Near East, whether standing astride the Suez Canal, helping secure
U.S.
domination of oil from the Persian/Arab Gulf or working closely with
the
Turkish army. But they are fully capable of biting the hand that feeds
them.

The
Netanyahu government thinks it has taken the measure of the Obama
administration, and that Washington will cringe if Tel Aviv snarls. So
far
they’re right, and on fundamental issues that will continue. But if the
Zionists
conclude they have to go it alone, the hardliners most likely will.
During the
last U.S. presidential campaign, Israeli historian Morris predicted
that Israel
would launch a strike against Iran before George W. Bush left office.,
writing
that “an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the
final
steps toward getting the bomb is probable” (New
York Times, 18 July 2008). His timing was off, but his basic
reasoning is
that of mainstream Zionists. From the standpoint of U.S. imperialism,
and of
the peoples of the region, including the
Israeli population, this would appear crazy. The idea that an
Israeli
nuclear first strike would stop or even set back efforts by Iran’s
Islamic
regime to obtain nukes is absurd. But the madmen in Tel Aviv have the
third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, as big or bigger than
Britain’s,
with hundreds of A-bombs, the military means to deliver them, and they
are
possessed of a suicidal “Masada1 complex”
that makes them quite capable of setting off a conflagration that would
incinerate the Middle East.

Contemplate,
for example, the recent report from the London Sunday Times
(30 May):

“Three
German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles
are to be
deployed in the [Persian] Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
“The
first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic
missiles
developed by Iran ... could hit sites in Israel, including air bases
and
missile launchers.
“The
submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited
the
Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent
presence
of at least one of the vessels....
“Some
of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear
warheads in
the Israeli arsenal....
“The
submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a
nuclear
bomb. ‘The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach
any
target in Iran,’ said a navy officer.”

Israeli nuclear
submarine of the Dolphin class (U212), built in Germany, carries
nuclear cruise missiles. These subs will be stationed in the Persian
Gulf, within striking range of “any target in Iran.” Egypt allowed the
subs to go through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia will stand down its air
defense system to let Israeli jets attack Iran. Iran has every right to
obtain nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel's nuclear-armed
madmen – and the U.S., whose ships and subs in the Persian Gulf are
loaded with nukes.(Photo:
Gali Tibbon/AFP)

The London Times
is no sensationalist rag but the authoritative voice of British
imperialism
that in 1986 revealed the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal from
information supplied by Mordechai Vanunu. The courageous Israeli
technician
working at the Dimona atomic facility was jailed for 18 years, eleven
of them
in solitary confinement, for his revelations. Now the Times
(12 June) reports that “Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to
stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing
raid on
Iran’s nuclear facilities.” The dispatch from Dubai quotes a U.S.
military source
in the region saying, “This has all been done with the agreement of the
[US]
State Department.” So the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can
have no
doubts about Israel’s ability to deliver a nuclear strike, and it will
no doubt
act accordingly.2

The
League
for
the
Fourth
International
defends
Iran,
a
semi-colonial
country,
against imperialism and Zionist Israel, which
serves
as a cat’s paw for the imperialists. We give no political support to
the
Islamic fundamentalist regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and denounce its
brutal
crackdown against opposition demonstrations last year (see “Mass
Protests Rock Iran: No to All Wings of the Mullah Regime!” and “Iran’s
Islamic Republic in Turmoil –
What Program for Struggle?” in The
Internationalist No. 29, Summer 2009). But we defend
Iran’s
right to develop nuclear power and to obtain nuclear or any other kind
of
weapons to defend itself against those countries that already have
nuclear
weapons in the region and have threatened to use them against Iran: the
United
States and Israel. With 5 million Jews facing 500 million Arabs in the
region – as well as 75 million Persians, 70 million Turks and 35
million Kurds – no matter how great Israel’s present military
superiority, no matter how brutal its oppression of the Palestinians,
the long-term prospects of the Zionist state are somber. In 1940,
Leon Trotsky warned that “the attempt to solve the
Jewish
question through the migration of Jews to Palestine” was a “tragic
mockery of
the Jewish people,” and a turn of military events could “transform
Palestine
into a bloody trap for several hundred thousand [now several million]
Jews.”
This is no less true today.

■

1 That is,
the Zionist rulers will stop at nothing, even suicidal measures. In the
Judean struggle for liberation against the Roman empire, a sect of
Jewish merchants and nobility, the Zealots, who had been expelled from
Jerusalem after killing other Jews, took refuge by seizing the Roman
fortress at Masada. As the Romans were about to retake Masada in the
year 73, the Zealots murdered their own families and then committed
collective suicide. Today Israeli soldiers end their basic training by
climbing the mount and taking the oath, “Masada shall not fall again.”
For the raid on the Gaza flotilla, the Israeli prison service mobilized
its elite Masada unit, a hit squad notorious for provoking jail riots
and executing Palestinian prisoners.

2Tehran will also have taken note of the article in the New York Times (28 March),
“Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran.” This is a report on a war game
last December at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle
East policy, involving “former top American policymakers and
intelligence officials — some well known,” simulating an Israeli first
strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Although the reporter
concluded, “No one won,” cautioning that it would at most set Iranian
nuclear programs back “a few years” and would quickly turn into a
region-wide conflict centering on U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, “the
Israelis argued that it could further undercut a fragile regime” and
was “worth the cost.” When they start publishing war simulations in the
Times, even as a
cautionary note, it’s clear that serious steps are being contemplated
behind the scenes.